Notes from the RNC, Post 3: Indo-Americans for McCain

Tonight I attended a meeting of mainly wealthy Indian businessmen. They were gathering to celebrate the impending nomination of John McCain by his party, and their role as visibly political Indians.

mallika jew.JPG

The first man I spoke with was Prakash Puram, a staunch Republican since 1978, when Republican senators helped him get a visa for his mother. He told me this:

“The Democrats didn’t help me at all. And the Republicans who helped me said, ‘Remember this when you grow up. Do something for the party.'”

The Republicans were smart. They got a donor for life.

He likes them for other reasons too, he hastened to tell me, because they believe in the values of religion and family (every one of the people I interviewed said the same thing). When I asked him if the Republican emphasis on Christianity bothers him at all, he told me that religion of any kind is good.

Puneet Ahluwalia was there, a business partner of George Allen’s. On Allen’s macaca moment, he had this to say:

“I think Biden should be famous for the donuts thing, and Hillary for the Gandhi at the gas stations. With Allen, it was just a word. I know him so well. He didn’t mean it.”

Ahluwalia said he was one of the few people who emphasized Allen’s record of supporting the US India nuclear treaty (a point nearly everyone there mentioned in McCain’s favor as well), when the macaca hit the fan. He worked out of Allen’s campaign office and now partners with him as a consultant for IT businesses.

The event was full of big-shots like him, one of them – a Dr. Sambhu N. Banik – was appointed a member of the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities in June. By Bush himself. Banik insisted I stand in front of his hotel while he ran up to get pictures of him with Bush Sr. and George W., and one of his wife with McCain. Women were conspicuously absent. The three who were there told me McCain has a long way to go in appealing to women, specifically Indians. But Obama was too suspiciously charming for one of them, an employee at the Pentagon who didn’t want to give out her name. She told me he reminds her too much of Bono.

I heard some choice quotes at the event, namely:

“I’m just a regular heart transplant surgeon during the day. This is what I do for fun.”

The constant refrains were that Indians have a lot to gain by lower taxation of the wealthy, and that McCain stands for outsourcing and India’s nuclear power. Banik told me his children are democrats, but that it was a philosophy borne of youth, and one they would grow out of.

One thing about the event: there were a lot of Jews. The American Jewish Committee, a bipartisan, pro-Israel group, was there in full force, with an Indian Jew leading the charge. They had gone to the Denver convention, and there too, partnered with Indians. They talked a lot about the cultural similarities between Indians and Jews, a favorite topic of my father’s. Indians like education; Jews like education. Indians are a relatively successful minority; Jews are a relatively successful minority. Indians tend to be short; Jews…you get it. Here’s a picture of two AJC members – the Indian man told me this Jewish man beside him is his guru.

jew hindu.JPG

On one level the event delivered what was to be expected: brown counterparts of rich, white men. But there was a more layered side to it: nearly all of them told me they just want Indians to participate. Whether republican or democratic, it didn’t matter. It is important, they said, that we have a voice.

“It’s not the fault of our parties, it’s the fault of our own,”

said one Digvijay Gaekwad, a member of the royal family of Baroda , and brother to a famous cricket player (I wanted to link to him, but there are a couple of Gaekwad cricketers, and I’m not sure which one he is). He had a distinct understanding of what political involvement can garner:

“Under the name of God we’re willing to pay six figures, but under the name of politics we never sign a check. And everywhere in the world – Trinidad, Kenya – we are suffering. If everyone gave a few bucks to the candidate they like, we’d all have a little political insurance. It’s important, but unfortunately, Indians only come out when there’s food involved.”

Gaekwad was one of the many there who attended the 2004 convention in New York. He said they made sure to offer a big spread there, just as they had here (the event was held at an Indian restaurant owned by a McCain supporter – the food was delicious).

Like every other supporter I talked to, these guys think the Palin mess will blow over. And they believe McCain is their man (though a couple of them were for Romney and Giuliani in the primaries – one of them raised $50,000 for Giuliani’s campaign – he told me a lot of his donors were Indian democrats who he persuaded; “Where was I going to find Indian republicans?” he asked me. I pointed around us.).

“The other guy” was how they referred to Obama. The other guy is not the answer. He will raise taxes and hurt India.

That’s how they began and ended the dinner. Fiercely free-market and small government. Happily traditional. Gleamingly wealthy. And whether you agree with their politics, the image they projected was a powerful one. One of men (and some women) using their money and time to further causes they believe in. Causes that were essentially about being Indian. Ahluwalia told me:

“Indians confuse democrats with democracy. But what we are for is democracy. Freedom to be who we are.”

52 thoughts on “Notes from the RNC, Post 3: Indo-Americans for McCain

  1. $48: Yaar Kartik,

    I lost you after the D-Punjab thingie (which is one of the reasons I have never warmed up to Obama, that plus the Austan Goolsbee episode).

    Do you have any citations for all your “facts” about Madeleine Albright, and the Dem Senators dragging their feet? The discriminatory NPT regime was put in place by both Democrats and Republicans collaborating with each other (and the remaining P-5 nations). Plus I don’t know if you remember one of the most anti India congressmen has been Rep. Dan Burton from Indiana (5th) is a Republican. Take a look at http://www.google.com/search?q=“dan+burton”+india

    Interestingly he does support the N-deal. He seems to have moderated his earlier Anti-India stance though.

  2. @51:

    Can’t find a link with specific quotes of Albright threatening military action to curtail India’s nuclear ambitions. However, this article by Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute is a great description of the Clintonistas’ attempts to establish a US-Chinese condominium to dictate the terms of India’s nuclear destiny.

    Attributing New Delhi’s decision to conduct nuclear tests and move toward “weaponizing” its atomic program solely to the evolving U.S.-Chinese relationship is an oversimplification. The five-decade-old feud with Pakistan, as well as domestic politics, clearly played a role. Nevertheless, Indian officials and opinion leaders vehemently stressed not only the alleged security threat posed by China but Washington’s apparent tilt toward Beijing. India’s defense minister, George Fernandes, reacted bluntly to U.S. criticism of the tests. “I would ask Bill Clinton only one question. And it would be this: Why is it that you feel yourself so close to China that you can trust China with nuclear weapons ellipse but you cannot trust India?” The strategy editor of The Hindu newspaper reflected the same sense of irritation and betrayal: “We were being told to stay in a small box while the U.S. gave South Asia to China.” Even a prominent critic of the tests, former Prime Minister I. K. Gujral, asked, “If you have decided that this side of Suez is an area of influence of China, what should an Indian policymaker do?” American officials further alienated the Indian government by contemptuously dismissing protests about growing U.S.-Chinese ties. The scorn over Delhi’s objections to Clinton and Chinese President Jiang Zemin’s joint declaration in June pledging cooperation to stem nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation and promote peace and stability in South Asia was typical. The Indian government noted that it was “ironical that two countries that have directly and indirectly contributed to the unabated proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems in our neighborhood are presuming to prescribe the norms for nonproliferation.” Such rebukes understandably irked Clinton and Albright, but Albright’s reaction betrayed a complete unwillingness to accord Delhi’s concerns even a modicum of respect. She accused the Indians of acting as though a call for a halt to proliferation “doesn’t apply to them, that everybody is out of step with them.” She added ominously, “They had better stop dismissing statements like this.” The secretary acted as if India had no right to object to a coordinated U.S.-Chinese policy on key issues — including Kashmir — in India’s backyard. From India’s perspective, the declaration looked like the product of a U.S.-Chinese condominium to dictate outcomes in South Asia. No major power could accept such a development placidly. Indeed, Washington’s insensitivity may intensify, rather than reduce, Delhi’s determination to build a nuclear deterrent and adopt a more assertive foreign policy.

    As for Democrat legislators dragging their feet on the nuclear deal… one need look no further than the voting record for HR 5682, the Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act.

    Govtrack

    In the House of Representatives, the Republicans voted in favor of the act 219 to 9. The Democrats were markedly less enthusiastic, with 140 voting in favor and 58 against. Most telling, though, were the amendments that Democrat after Democrat introduced with the clear intention of sabotaging the act. See Rediff for details. Note especially the amendments introduced by Brad Sherman and Howard Berman (both D-CA)… which would have completely contravened the intent of the July 18th, 2005 joint declaration on which the whole exercise was predicated, and the 123 agreement whose terms Nicholas Burns had been negotiating in good faith with his counterparts in South Block.

    In the US Senate the divide along party lines was even more emphatic, with all 12 senators voting against the bill’s passage being Democrats.

    Some of the Democratic Senators who opposed the Hyde Act have very obvious China connections. Others, perhaps not so obvious… but let’s remember, we’re talking about a Democratic Party that is known to have been penetrated by Beijing’s influence at the highest levels. Remember the 1996 Campaign Finance revelations… when Bill Clinton was reported to have received nearly half-a-million dollars for his legal defense fund from PRC government representative Charlie Trie? The Chinese haven’t been as brazen or egregious in their patronage of the Democratic Party in the years since then. However, I can’t think of a likelier explanation for all those Democratic legislators’ opposition to the India-US Nuclear Deal, other than that they’re firmly ensconced in Beijing’s pocket.